Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 50 to 74 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)
rodgers? >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you. this isn't on this subject, but since it's about bicycles, maybe the question is more directed towards mta or the bicycle coalition, but has there been any thinking and i don't though this. i asked this question the other day and they said there was also legislation, but is there any discussion about legislating bicycle licenses for individuals buying bicycles? when i was a young kid riding a bicycle, i had it take my bike to the police department and get a license. it was put on there with a little metal plate and clamped on there. it wasn't screwed on or anything. i guess i could have pried it off, but i was a good little kid. so is there anything going on like that, especially since there is the statistics that we were just given and visiblely on the streets a lot more bicyclists? you know the paper carries storis about the bad parts about it, that that is i'm sure in the minority, but on the other hand i don't know is there any thinking going on about licensing bikes and having a mandatory training program or something? >> we get inq
. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] >> good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee. i am sean elsbernd and i am joined by christina olague and we will be shortly joined by ms. carmen chu. mr. clerk, can you read item one. >> item one is issuance of on sale beer and wine license for mikhail brodsky for pectopah, llc located at 748 innes avenue. >> thank you mr. clerk. to the department. >> [inaudible] >> hold on one second. turn your mic on. >> thank you. >> testing. good morning supervisor supervisors. i am from the san francisco police department. they have filed an application with the city and on cite beer premseses for 748 innes avenue. for the purpose of this hearing the california department of alcohol and beverage control s
. >> commissioner borden in >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. excuse me, 6 to 0. commissioners, that will place you on item -- >> can i have a request? our person is on our way back. is it possible to change with item 20 and be made last? if you want us to present we will, but we just [speaker not understood]. >> i have to keep things rolling if you don't mind. keep it in the order they're on the agenda. thank you. >> okay, commissioners. item 19, 2012.0859d, 70 crestline drive, request for staff initiated discretionary review. >> good evening, commission president fong, members of the planning commission. department staff tom lam presenting a initial discretionary review on the property 70 crestline drive. the proposal is to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. and currently the subject lot contains a five-story over garage, 14-unit building. and [speaker not understood] subdivision, one southerly lot will contain the existing 14 un
sugaya. >> just a comment. i think that the discussion that's been going on and i think ideas they mainly proposed by commissioner martinez was along the lines if there was a possibility having some kind of designation or recognition or some process -- not necessarily for properties alone, but for other businesses or whatever, and then to try to tie those somehow to some kind of incentives or things that don't currently exist and i think that's where the issue is. kind of like how do you designate and recognize and what are the incentives afterwards? or protections too? >> the board of appeals did meet last night. it was actually the first meeting where we had five members and commissioner honda was approved last week and had the first meeting with the board of appeals last week. he has the history of being a small business owner and currently works in real estate. they heard about a letter of determination appealed to the board and they found the property is within a thousand feet of the merceda heights play ground and recreational facility dedicated to 18 and under which
at this time. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i move to certify. >> second. >> all on motion to certify the final environmental report want commissioner. >> 50eur. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. commissioner. >> aye. >> and commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. that passes unanimously. >> and places you under item 11 western soma community plan adoption actions that include adoption of california environmental quality act findings, adoption of amendments to the general plan, amendments to the planning code, amendments to the zoning maps, amendments to the administrative code, and a resolution recommending approval of a program implementation document. >> good afternoon president fong, commissioners, cory teague for staff. you have before you the action items necessary for the adoption of the western soma community plan and it's associated rezoning and planning code amendments as well as administrative code implementation document. so just to be clear again about the specific actions in front of you. the first is to
of the building. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i think as far as impact, i mean, the architect did point out on property line windows that the other properties don't enjoy that either because it happened to be at the time that they built the build they couldn't put the property line windows on the other side. the other impact, if views are not protected, i don't think there is impact. >> commissioner moore? >> i don't think why we need to design an office building height, which is about 13', even 8' floor and 10' is perfectly fine. so i think the motion should consider lowering the upper floor to a 10' floor to ceiling height, which brings the upper floor to 11.1' and solar peanut butter panels are flat and we have something to consider. >> that is a proposed amendment? >> yes. >> we're talking about a total inez tenenbaum of 11.1. basically replicating the existing unit floor to ceiling height, which is very, very nice for a generously sized unit. and working on the solar panels to be in the flatter configuration. >> if the secretary is okay with it. i will second that amendment.
at commissioner sugaya's request, there is a compilation of appeals that have gone to the board. it's not fully complete because we got the request a couple days ago. either a period where there were some major e-i-rs that went to the board on appeal or went to the board in general for major land use plans, fully 60% of the appeals are for exemptions. and exemptions, if you look at the tallies, you know, there's many long periods of gaps when the environmental document was prepared and when the appeal heard two years, year and a half, year, whatever. and that in most cases is a reflection of people waiting, they have exhausted all other avenues, waiting until there is a last permit, maximizing the delay, maximizing the cost, maximizing the uncertainty. that is what this legislation tries to deal with. i'm sure there will be other questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional staff presentation? okay. we're going to go ahead and open up to public comment now. and i'll call some names. since we have so many speakers, maybe we can all line up on your right side of the room. and if yo
sugaya. >> thanks. i have a bunch of disjointed comments here. first of all, i'd like to thank ann marie for responding to some questions that i had with respect to the table we have here -- i asked you first. i know we're going to get additional information with respect to this in terms of some more timelines is what i'm looking for. i also like to thank staff for providing some responses to all of the letters, the fine questions that were previously submitted and it's also in the matrix in our documents. that said, i think in just quickly looking over the number of why i asked ann marie how many exemptions, e-i-rs, negative declarations have been processed by the
. >> commissioners, you have a motion and second to not take dr -- i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. in contrast to commissioner moore, i can't help but think when this was laid out that those little wedge shape pieces may not totally have been intentionally placed there, but they were there because of the way the buildings were designed and laid out and the way the streets curve. and, therefore, they were kind of left over spaces where buildings didn't naturally fit. but, on the other hand, right in a row with each other up the hill. so, maybe there was some conscious planning going on at that time. and whether or not there are tons of open space on top of the hill, this is a completely different kind of open space situation. and i think that, you know, the more
. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] . >> good afternoon, everyone, this is the monday, december 3, 2012 meeting of the land use and economic development committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. my name is eric mar, the chair. to my right is vice chair supervisor cohen, to my left is supervisor scott wiener. we are also joined by supervisor olage >> items acted upon today will appear on the december 11 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. colleagues, we have 7 items on the agenda. i'm going to ask if there is no objection if we could take no. 7 as a courtesy to supervisor olage to hear that item first. are there any objections? miss miller, could you please call item 7. >> item 7 is a resolution to appear
, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have
, commissioner sugaya? >> just on the privacy issue, i don't think people stand around on decks to look into bedroom windows. i'm sorry. i live in a condo, across the street from me, there are bedroom windows. you know, i don't think people in my condo building stand there and try to look in other people's windows. i suppose if you are having coffee or having a drink or something, you know, you might glance around and there is that kind of thing, but i don't think that most people on these kinds of decks. this is a family. it's like -- it's just not going to happen. i don't consider that to be an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people are always going to have windows. i don't see any other impacts. the dr req
stronger. >> commissioner sugaya. >> we don't have a requirement for car share, do we? >> yeah we do have a requirement for car share. if it's less than 50 years you don't need a space but over 50 i think it's one and over a hundred i think it's two, so there is a minimum amount. this would basically set a maximum amount. >> but they're not in the spaces required under the code? >> no. they do not count -- your required car share spaces don't count against your max parking allotment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just clarification. you have of course the principally permitted residential parking that varies from project to project and gain by cu and some places there are requirements for car share but there is a maximum on the car share as it now exists in most instances? >> the maximum is -- let's say you're required to have one space and you can have that and doesn't take away from the maximum amount but if you max out the parking it can't add car share spaces so this allows to you add in addition to that and not count against you on a voluntary basis though. >>
Search Results 50 to 74 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)